It varies by location, but in Michigan, you can hardly sell a 26er anymore. Used, high end builds sit in the Classifieds for peanuts, and still barely move. It has a lot to do with our 'terrain', as most users will benefit from the rolling efficiency of the 29ers and less frequently suffer from the drawbacks. Trails here are mostly devoid of technical challenge, and don't require a high degree of maneuverability.

There are holdouts. Many in the FR and DH genres. Many more of the type that ride old school, or the budget minded. I fall somewhere in there. For this crowd, the 650 holds more appeal. There are plenty who don't believe in 29er, but are interested in the 650. This is where I see the market. A gradual exodus from 26er to 650b. Dedicated XC riders will stay on 29ers, and 650b will become what the 26er was. Completely replace it? Doubtful. But I'd wager that it's here to stay.

I can't take anyone seriously when they tell me that the 650b wheels roll over the rough stuff easier than the 26er wheels. What exactly are you comparing there, the wheel size or the tires and air pressure?

I can barely see any discernible difference between the 26er and the 29er even with the same tires. The biggest difference I notice is the weight difference. The heavier wheels want to keep rolling because of the heavier mass. Doesn't seem like an improvement to me.

Are you serious? If you can't tell the roll over difference between 26" and 29" based on diameter, you clearly haven't ridden a lot and are in a distinct minority. For those if us who have it's obvious and significant. Why do you think 29'ers have gained such a market share? If you say marketing or fad, you are simply wrong. Check out this graphic:

There is also a roll over difference between 26" and 27.5", although obviously less distinct than 29". But it's there nonetheless, plus the wheels are stiffer and lighter than 29".

You have to spend some time riding all the bikes and then you should get an appreciation for the differences, advantages and disadvantages of each.

Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

. Jr. High Euclidean Geometry proves larger diameter wheel rolls over a given object more efficiently and with less resistance than smaller diameter.

Can't believe we are posting such 10 year old common knowledge in Dec. 2012

Seat time, riding more, resting, eating well and getting stronger as a rider. Whether I ride my 26" or 29'er, rigid or suspension - that is ultimately the single most important factor.

There is no substitute for a strong, skilled experienced pilot - that us a DUH truth that everyone knows. But the machine one rides in specific terrain has a huge if not crucial impact. Also intuitively obvious is the fact that a better pilot will handle the "wrong" bike in the wrong terrain better than a newbie fatty will. But that does not mean that a skilled pilot does not PEFER the right tool for the right job.

Notice that there are there is many different types of bikes available. - including wheel sizes, frame materials, suspension, geometry, etc etc. There is a reason for that

Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

But that does not mean that a skilled pilot does not PEFER the right tool for the right job.

In the end, your arguments are silly. They are.

You are assuming that, based on your Microsoft Paint diagrams, that riders should prefer 29'ers over 26'ers due to one - very debatable and benign - aspect of a larger wheel. What about the dozens of other variables the 29'er wheel size presents to the rider, that may or may not hinder their performance?

Common sense is not so common. Tell the guys that are faster than you on 26" bikes that they're doing it wrong.

You are assuming that, based on your Microsoft Paint diagrams, that riders should prefer 29'ers over 26'ers due to one - very debatable and benign - aspect of a larger wheel. What about the dozens of other variables the 29'er wheel size presents to the rider, that may or may not hinder their performance?

Common sense is not so common. Tell the guys that are faster than you on 26" bikes that they're doing it wrong.

Tell the guys on 26ers in front of me that they're not ahead of me, but a full lap behind me and about to get lapped

Something wrong with your bike? Blame it on super human strength and sleep well at night knowing you are more than a man.

You are assuming that, based on your Microsoft Paint diagrams, that riders should prefer 29'ers over 26'ers due to one - very debatable and benign - aspect of a larger wheel. What about the dozens of other variables the 29'er wheel size presents to the rider, that may or may not hinder their performance?

Common sense is not so common. Tell the guys that are faster than you on 26" bikes that they're doing it wrong.

WTF are you talking about? Some guy in this thread claimed not to be able to tell the difference between 26" and 29" wheels which I pointed out was ridiculous. I said nothing about speed, only pointed out the non debatable physical fact that 29" wheels roll over objects better than smaller diameter wheels. This is so obvious and has been discussed to death so many times in these forums it is stupid to be debating it now. Why do you think 29'ers now dominate mtb sales and win more XC races than the other wheel sizes? They roll better and maintain momentum better.

In this thread we are talking about the 27.5" in between size, which also roll better than 26" but not as well as 29" (Euclidean geometry again). They are not as nimble as 26" but more nimble than 29". Also physical facts relating to size and weight. Some people claim they are just a fad, many without even trying them. Of those who have ridden them, many claim perfect blend between the extremes " best of both"; others have the opposite " worst of both" reaction.

Bottom line is that they they perform differently and fill a niche, and are here to stay, not a fad.

Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

WTF are you talking about? Some guy in this thread claimed not to be able to tell the difference between 26" and 29" wheels which I pointed out was ridiculous. I said nothing about speed, only pointed out the non debatable physical fact that 29" wheels roll over objects better than smaller diameter wheels. This is so obvious and has been discussed to death so many times in these forums it is stupid to be debating it now. Why do you think 29'ers now dominate mtb sales and win more XC races than the other wheel sizes? They roll better and maintain momentum better.

In this thread we are talking about the 27.5" in between size, which also roll better than 26" but not as well as 29" (Euclidean geometry again). They are not as nimble as 26" but more nimble than 29". Also physical facts relating to size and weight. Some people claim they are just a fad, many without even trying them. Of those who have ridden them, many claim perfect blend between the extremes " best of both"; others have the opposite " worst of both" reaction.

Bottom line is that they they perform differently and fill a niche, and are here to stay, not a fad.

Well they are heavier, I'll give them that much.
The biggest problem with your argument, is that its clouded. You can't use an exaggerated example, and emotions as proof of fact. All it does, is prove that if you get the wheels big enough, eventually they will roll over things easier. The reality, is that we don't roll perfectly round tires over obstacles. The tire radius at the contact patch is hardly any different to begin with, and becomes negligable when you consider how much tires deform over obstacles. Yes I have spent a lot of seat time comparing different wheel sizes, and haven't had experiences where the slightly larger diameters have made any effective improvement. My current favorite combo is a 26er wheelset with large volume tires. The wheelset is light, and the tires do an excellent job of conforming to terrain.
If you love your new bigger, heavier wheels, then I'm happy for you, but there are so many variable involved in riding off road terrain, that the only time you would see any legit difference in obstacle rollover are when the wheel diameters are more than 5" different. I'm not saying you are wrong and I am right, I'm just voicing my opinion, based on my experience.

The only time I've seen justification for larger wheels is for taller riders. It makes the bike more proportional.

As a business owner I will sell anyone, anything they are willing to buy. I have no problem watching others spend money as they see fit. But I see 650b as a fad. Bikes are like trendy clothes. The manufacturers have to come out with the "next great thing" every few years so they can sell us "something better". Unfortunately, its really not better, its just different. There is no science behind it that says its better, rather its a marketing scheme to get you and me to buy more, by telling us the bike will somehow make us better riders which is a falsehood.

30 years ago there was really just one "mountain bike". Now there are 15 genres of the mountain bike and the water has become muddied to the point that most people don't really even know what they REALLY need for the type of riding they actually do. Study after study, test after test, shows no measurable improvement from a 26 to a 29. Where one has an advantage/disadvantage the other has an advantage/disadvantage so in the end its a moot point. This is the same with 650b, where it will have a slight advantage against the others, it will have a disadvantage some where else which will be the equalizer.

I personally would rather see manufacturers continue to improve upon what we already have, rather than introduce a new platform. But alas, most people will still buy into the fad, and then a couple years later not be happy with the 650 and will go onto the the next fad. The 650b size has been around for a long time — at least 50 years. It was a popular trekking and tandem size in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, for instance.

It's history repeating itself, its predictable, and therefore is a fad.

I welcome your thoughts and look forward to the discussion.

Aloha, you bring up some very good points.

Do we need or really have to have 650b? My answer is no. But then again, why are we out there mountain biking? Do we really need or have to ride? For some, maybe, their jobs depend on it but otherwise it's a outdoor activity that we all can enjoy in different ways.

Bottom line, maybe a bigger or different wheel might make a difference in physics that would allow us to ride something easier. But then again, there are a lot of different things that marketing people have said does this. In the end, it's all about we (us personally) getting out there and having fun. In the end, we personally have to power this piece of equipment with our own muscles/legs/lungs.......There's no free lunch, there's substitute for conditioning. However, that's OK as we can all have fun no matter how much we're sucking for air trying to get up that next air or down that next section.

Stepping back a bit, there is some science to say that the bigger wheels help. Rock crawling rigs have found bigger tires can climb up and over obstacles easier. Well, "easier" is a tough one to define because when the rock crawlers needed bigger tires, they had to find bigger, stronger axles and beefier drive lines and more power.....So once again, no free lunch.

I still go back to the fact that as long as we're out there having fun, that's what it's all about. I started riding back in the mid 80's with full rigid, crappy gears and tires and have had just as much fun as I am having today. The technology just adds to the "I think I can ride that much more".

Well they are heavier, I'll give them that much.
The biggest problem with your argument, is that its clouded. You can't use an exaggerated example, and emotions as proof of fact. All it does, is prove that if you get the wheels big enough, eventually they will roll over things easier. The reality, is that we don't roll perfectly round tires over obstacles.

The tire radius at the contact patch is hardly any different to begin with, and becomes negligable when you consider how much tires deform over obstacles. Yes I have spent a lot of seat time comparing different wheel sizes, and haven't had experiences where the slightly larger diameters have made any effective improvement. My current favorite combo is a 26er wheelset with large volume tires. The wheelset is light, and the tires do an excellent job of conforming to terrain.

If you love your new bigger, heavier wheels, then I'm happy for you, but there are so many variable involved in riding off road terrain, that the only time you would see any legit difference in obstacle rollover are when the wheel diameters are more than 5" different. I'm not saying you are wrong and I am right, I'm just voicing my opinion, based on my experience.

The only time I've seen justification for larger wheels is for taller riders. It makes the bike more proportional.

I would be interested to try a 32" wheeled bike.

Like you said there are many variables involved. I do agree about the rollability, this is an advantage of bigger wheel that got exaggerated. Sure 29er roll over stuff better but you'd see the benefit when rolling over small stuffs, not big ones.

Technical climbs are hit and miss, some yes 29er may be better, but at best it's a washed. Same can be said about descending as well. I still prefer the fun factor my 26er offer, and going to 27.5" it does not reduce the fun factor, so it's a good thing, can't say the same about 29er because many small factor really feel different.

The most famous misconception of the bigger wheels is how they are equal to the smaller wheels with more travel. I rode my bikes of different travel side by side with my Rip9(4.5") and pretty much it's not the case.

Big wheels are good at a few things and longer travel bikes are good at a few things, to say that a 4.5" Rip9 is about the same as 6-6.5" travel Nomad or Maverick ML8 is just stupid but that's what many like to believe. Just because some racers replace their XC FS bike for a XC HT29er it does not translate to them being equal.

Well they are heavier, I'll give them that much.
The biggest problem with your argument, is that its clouded. You can't use an exaggerated example, and emotions as proof of fact. All it does, is prove that if you get the wheels big enough, eventually they will roll over things easier. The reality, is that we don't roll perfectly round tires over obstacles. The tire radius at the contact patch is hardly any different to begin with, and becomes negligable when you consider how much tires deform over obstacles. Yes I have spent a lot of seat time comparing different wheel sizes, and haven't had experiences where the slightly larger diameters have made any effective improvement. My current favorite combo is a 26er wheelset with large volume tires. The wheelset is light, and the tires do an excellent job of conforming to terrain.
If you love your new bigger, heavier wheels, then I'm happy for you, but there are so many variable involved in riding off road terrain, that the only time you would see any legit difference in obstacle rollover are when the wheel diameters are more than 5" different. I'm not saying you are wrong and I am right, I'm just voicing my opinion, based on my experience.

Note to self: do not post stuff in the General Forum that folks who read the 29'er and 650b Forums take for granted, and others do not. You will dig a hole.

The only time I've seen justification for larger wheels is for taller riders. It makes the bike more proportional.

I would be interested to try a 32" wheeled bike.

Reading these two sentences together, there are only two valid conclusions:

1) you are one tall motherf***er; or

2)

Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

Like you said there are many variables involved. I do agree about the rollability, this is an advantage of bigger wheel that got exaggerated. Sure 29er roll over stuff better but you'd see the benefit when rolling over small stuffs, not big ones.

Technical climbs are hit and miss, some yes 29er may be better, but at best it's a washed. Same can be said about descending as well. I still prefer the fun factor my 26er offer, and going to 27.5" it does not reduce the fun factor, so it's a good thing, can't say the same about 29er because many small factor really feel different.

The most famous misconception of the bigger wheels is how they are equal to the smaller wheels with more travel. I rode my bikes of different travel side by side with my Rip9(4.5") and pretty much it's not the case.

Big wheels are good at a few things and longer travel bikes are good at a few things, to say that a 4.5" Rip9 is about the same as 6-6.5" travel Nomad or Maverick ML8 is just stupid but that's what many like to believe. Just because some racers replace their XC FS bike for a XC HT29er it does not translate to them being equal.

One of the big pro 27.5" wheel arguments is that they will fit frames with 5-6" of travel without geometry and excessive height compromises that would occur using 29" wheels with that much travel. Hence you can have a bike with the same travel as a 26'er, with a bit better better roll, but slightly higher weight and a small handling compromise.

Look for Enduro racers on 27.5" AM bikes with 5" or 6" travel in 2013. Also Logan Biggneli (3rd Place Red Bull Rampage) racing a KHS 650b DH. Also rumors that Aaron Gwin will be on 27.5" as well.

Old enough to know better. And old enough not to care. Best age to be.

One of the big pro 27.5" wheel arguments is that they will fit frames with 5-6" of travel without geometry and excessive height compromises that would occur using 29" wheels with that much travel. Hence you can have a bike with the same travel as a 26'er, with a bit better better roll, but slightly higher weight and a small handling compromise.

.

That's spot on with my experience. My Ibis still have the corner-like-it's-on-rail trait but more pedaling clearance. I only wish that Tioga makes the psycho genius or better yet the venture in 650b.

I don't think 650b is a fad. If all the bike companies start making bikes in that wheel size, we just won't have any choice but to adopt that wheel size.
I consider 650b as legit as 10 or 11 speed rear cassettes as far as performance.

Do I need it? No. Will it make me any faster or slower? No. Will I have any choice in the near future? No. A fad is flourescent paint and accessories.

Both my brother in law & myself have 26er's & 29er's, both never get ridden since we switched over to 650B over a year ago.
We both went on & won our NorCal XC championships classes this season on 650b's.
I had to add in 650's to my 2010 26 Spark, this turned it into a XC monster!
It's much faster then the new 26 or 29er Sparks (ridden both).
So Please save the BS about how great your wheel size is compared to the 27.5's,
Scott won both the World XC championships & World Cup XC on 650b's, a "Size They Did NOT Even Sell!!" Because it Tested better then both 26 or 29 (Sizes they Sold), when run side by side with exactly the same setup!

As a business owner I will sell anyone, anything they are willing to buy. I have no problem watching others spend money as they see fit. But I see 650b as a fad. Bikes are like trendy clothes. The manufacturers have to come out with the "next great thing" every few years so they can sell us "something better". Unfortunately, its really not better, its just different. There is no science behind it that says its better, rather its a marketing scheme to get you and me to buy more, by telling us the bike will somehow make us better riders which is a falsehood.

30 years ago there was really just one "mountain bike". Now there are 15 genres of the mountain bike and the water has become muddied to the point that most people don't really even know what they REALLY need for the type of riding they actually do. Study after study, test after test, shows no measurable improvement from a 26 to a 29. Where one has an advantage/disadvantage the other has an advantage/disadvantage so in the end its a moot point. This is the same with 650b, where it will have a slight advantage against the others, it will have a disadvantage some where else which will be the equalizer.

I personally would rather see manufacturers continue to improve upon what we already have, rather than introduce a new platform. But alas, most people will still buy into the fad, and then a couple years later not be happy with the 650 and will go onto the the next fad. The 650b size has been around for a long time — at least 50 years. It was a popular trekking and tandem size in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, for instance.

It's history repeating itself, its predictable, and therefore is a fad.

I welcome your thoughts and look forward to the discussion.

I think I heard all this before in regards to 29ers

Having both a 26er and 29er for years, the appeal of an in-between size is just obvious to me.